Obscene publication acquittal prompts guidance review

The unanimous acquittal last week of a man who sold hardcore porn DVDs is evidence that obscene publications laws are outdated, his lawyer has said as authorities have vowed to review enforcement guidance.

Michael Peacock was acquitted on Friday 6 January in Southwark Crown Court on six counts of distributing obscene DVDs under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the same statute under which Penguin Books were prosecuted for publishing Lady Chatterley's Lover.

Nigel Richardson, a partner at Hodge Jones and Allen, who acted for Michael Peacock, said the jury's verdict vindicated his client's decision to 'challenge this arcane and archaic legislation'.

For Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law at the same firm, this outcome was 'a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age'.

The acts shown in the DVDs are not illegal but their depiction in publications and films is likely to fall within the scope of the 1959 Act if a jury considered this could 'deprave or corrupt' the reader, viewer or listener.

'The law needs changing,' Jackman continued. 'We're in a bizarre position that societal values have moved on but the law hasn't. The guideline case on the issue, R v Holloway, talks about projectionists in private clubs. This material is now accessible to everyone with an internet connection. The OPA is outdated in the internet age.'

According to Jackman, SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, is already considering its response to the case and will meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to reevaluate the guidelines on what constitutes obscenity.

At present the burden of determining whether the offence is constituted rests on a jury, which Jackman said was wrong as it meant individuals would have to have the courage to contest the charges.

The entire law on sexual consent needed revision, he said. 'There is no problem making adult material only available to adults,' Jackman continued, 'but I'm uncomfortable, for instance, with page 3 being in newspapers; you could argue that this is a pornographic depiction. Why should that be readily accessible to the general public, including teenagers? We need an absolute rethink on obscenity laws.'

But others are warning that, while the laws on sexual consent may benefit from being reexamined, it may not be necessary '“ or necessarily progressive '“ to amend black letter law.

'We must be careful what we wish for. Wishing away the Obscene Publications Act could leave us with the much more conservative approach of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act,' said Chris Ashford, lecturer in law and sexuality at Sunderland University.

Ashford said legislation in this domain has been 'grey' for some time and that repealing the OPA could increase the reach of more restrictive legislation.

'So instead of greater freedoms we could end up with more prosecutions,' he said.